Evidence versus conspiracy theory

The destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11 has been explained by officialdom in terms of a conspiracy theory ... terrorists conspired to hijack and crash airliners into the twin towers, causing them to collapse.

This conspiracy theory does not attempt to explain the actual destruction of the WTC via examination of the evidence. Instead, it begins with the premise that the hijackers were Arab terrorists who planned the attack in order to bring down the Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Commission Report opens with a chapter entitled "We Have Some Planes", which essentially adopts, as the starting point of the investigation, the conclusion formerly presented by the Administration, namely that 19 Arab terrorists were solely responsible for the conspiracy to hijack planes and use them to attack the US. By selectively citing evidence to support this theory, officialdom arrives at a conclusion that does not accommodate much of the evidence pertaining to the events.

The official explanation for the destruction of the WTC fails to explain how or why the buildings spontaneously disintegrated with explosive force. It does not explain the apparent failure of air defense systems, despite forewarnings of possible hijackings. It does not explain the rapid removal and illegal destruction of evidence from the crime scene. It does not explain the complete lack of proper investigation of the crime. The official account simply ignores an abundance of evidence that fails to affirm the preordained narrative.

As an explanation for the events of 9/11, the official conspiracy theory is neither comprehensive nor complete.

Investigte 9/11

The justification for perpetual war on terror, as we all know, is the crime of 9/11. The government would have you believe that terrorists attacked us that day, and we must deny the terrorists safe haven so they won't attack us again.

There are, however, some important facts that have been omitted from the official narrative and ignored by the corporate media.

Here are just a few examples:

Fact: The twin towers were designed and constructed to withstand fire and structural damage resulting from the impact of a Boeing 707 jet airliner.

Fact: On 9/11, the 110 story buildings fell at near free fall acceleration, unheard of in fire ravaged buildings but typical of controlled demolition.

According to the official theory, fire weakened the impact damaged section which then failed, allowing the upper floors to fall through the remaining steel and concrete structure, crushing the building to smithereens in about the same amount of time it would take to fall through thin air... approximately 10 seconds.

But it should be obvious that gravitational force alone could not account for the sudden explosive disintegration of a building like that - some extra force was required to pulverize each 500,000 ton structure, from top to bottom, in about 10 seconds. That this is not widely recognised is testament to the efficacy of propaganda.

Fact: Heavy steel columns were ejected horizontally at high speeds, puncturing nearby buildings and landing hundreds of feet from the base of the towers.

Fact: A pyroclastic surge of pulverized concrete, gypsum and asbestos dust engulfed lower Manhattan, moving at speeds in excess of 60 kph.

Fact: The dust plume contained significant quantities of vapourised iron, which condensed into tiny iron microspheres, only visible under microscope.

Fact: Pools of molten iron were found at the base of the rubble piles and remained molten for many weeks after the towers came down.

Many of these facts are contained in official documents such as the reports from FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and the NIST Investigation. Most of them can also be observed in readily available video footage and photographs of the event and crime scene.

Furthermore, researchers from the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, last month presented a paper in the peer reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe.

The paper details evidence of unreacted nano-thermite in the dust from "ground zero". This unusual high energy material is an advanced exothermic compound, chemically similar to thermite and more powerful than dynamite, that can be used for cutting or melting steel, or as an explosive.

You won't hear it from the mainstream media, but skepticism about the official version of 9/11 is widespread and broadly based. There are many organisations, such as Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth and Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth, all calling for a proper investigation of the 9/11 catastrophe.

They want to know how and why the WTC towers spontaneously disintegrated into fine powder and modular lengths of steel after burning for less than two hours, given the buildings were in fact designed to withstand the collision of a Boeing 707.

They contend that much of the real world evidence and fundamental laws of physics refute the official collapse theory and support the controlled demolition theory.

Standard investigative procedures and fire protection codes actually require the sort of analyses that scientists, architects and engineers are calling for, so it's not an unreasonable or controversial demand.

So far, official investigations have failed to look for evidence of controlled demolition, presumably because "we have no reason to suspect it, so why look for evidence of it". They have also declined to investigate the actual "collapse" of the towers, instead limiting their study of evidence from time of impact up to the point at which the towers were "poised to collapse", implying that rapid and complete "collapse", once it began, was natural and inevitable.

The government and corporate media will tell you it's crazy and wrong to question the official conspiracy theory, but remember, real science cannot be fudged... challenging the official dogma is not a sign of madness, it's an act of civic responsibility.

Logic and the Perception of Conspiracy

A popular argument advanced by supporters of the official conspiracy theory against any suggestion of government connivance or complicity in the events of 9/11 and the subsequent cover-up, can be summarized fairly simply, as follows ...

It would require too many people to be involved in a conspiracy of that magnitude ... with so many people involved, someone would have spoken by now, and anyway, the government is just too incompetent to pull off something that sophisticated.

Now this really is a nonsensical argument. For starters, the logic involved in the first statement, that a conspiracy of this nature would require very many people, is contradicted by the official claim that 19 Arab hijackers were the only conspirators involved in 9/11. The only logical explanation for this apparent contradiction is that terrorists are way more competent than government. This proposition is oviously absurd.

But the "incompetence theory" has gained enormous support and credence from within the ranks of government itself. Richard Clarke, former White House Counterterrorism Adviser, is a prominent exponent of the "incompetence theory".

An interesting aspect of the "incompetence theory" is the fact that no government official has ever been fired, reprimanded, investigated or even directly accused of anything aproaching incompetence, let alone dereliction of duty, as a result of their inaction or incompetence before, on and after 9/11.

So it seems that the "incompetence theory" applies solely to the institutional structures of government, and not to the individuals who populate those structures.

However, this logic then allows for the possibility that certain competent individuals (say at least as competent as terrorists) within the institutional structures of government, could feasibly exploit these institutional incompetencies for their own ends.

In other words, corrupt government officials could take advantage of secretive government agencies, bureaucratic barriers, executive orders and the constraints of hierarchical command structures to further criminal self interest.

Without proper, independent judicial review of all the evidence, with full and frank deposition under oath of all the officials involved, we cannot reasonably rule out the possibility.

Characteristics of Controlled Demolition

Controlled demolition is a technique used to bring down skyscrapers.

There are several distinguishing characteristics of controlled demolition.

Here are five ...

1. Sudden onset

2. Symmetrical descent

3. Freefall acceleration

4. Complete collapse

5. Dust cloud or plume

All of these characteristics were observed during the collapse of WTC Building 7.



None of these characteristics, however, are associated with fire ravaged buildings.

In fact, no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire ... it's never happened.

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, "This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building."

Dr Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, told No Lies Radio on August 21, 2008, that NIST had chosen the "most credible" hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC Building 7.

WTC7 collapsed suddenly, symmetrically and completely, with freefall acceleration, generating an enormous dust cloud, at 5.28 pm on September 11, 2001.

To the casual observer, the collapse looks similar to a controlled demolition.

And yet, according to Dr Sunder, NIST did not consider controlled demolition a credible hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC7 and hence did not look for evidence of it.

Instead, NIST decided the most credible hypothesis was one that described a new phenomenon ... a phenomenon that NIST admits is the "first known instance" of its kind and that FEMA concedes "has only a low probability of occurrence."

NIST's hypothesis describes a phenomenon whereby scattered fires somehow lead to the sudden, simultaneous failure of thousands of structural steel components.

NIST claims, "Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 caused an extraordinary event, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."

And this NIST considers to be the "most credible" hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC7... amazing, incredible, pick your word... I'd say unscientific.

Mainstream media helps stifle inquiry into 9/11

The mainstream media deems search for the truth about 9/11 to be crazed, vile, heinous, outrageous, ludicrous, dangerous, tantamount to sedition.

Corporate media attempts to discredit and discourage discussion about 9/11 by smearing any who raise concerns or voice doubt about the official conspiracy theory.

The most common method used to chill any discussion of 9/11 is to invoke the phrase "conspiracy theories" and to associate discussion of 9/11 with crazy thinking.

This is convenient, since the official explanation for the events of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and hence anyone discussing it can be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.

Of course, the term "conspiracy theorist" is only applied to those who dare question the official conspiracy theory. Those who accept and believe without question, the official conspiracy theory... well they're just normal rational people.

But beyond the fantasy bubble inhabited by establishment lackeys, people are well aware of the lies and deception that masquerade as official dogma. In the wake of Van Jones resignation, Salon asked other signatories of the controversial petition demanding a proper investigation of 9/11, whether they still support the petition.

Here are some of the responses to Salon's question ...

Gray Brechin, historical geographer and visiting scholar at the University of California at Berkeley's Department of Geography, replied ...

"Until recently, I thought that I (like Van Jones) lived in a country with a First Amendment that permits freedom of speech, thought and petition without fear of reprisal."

Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law and practice at Princeton University; distinguished visiting professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, replied ...

"I would re-sign the 9/11 statement calling for investigation and clarification with respect to the series of questions that have never been satisfactorily answered. To call for an investigation along these lines does not make one a 9/11 'truther' or an endorser of a conspiracy theory. The deliberate blurring of the boundary between questioning the persuasiveness of the official version of 9/11 and the endorsement of an alternative theory of the events that implicates high officials in the Bush presidency seems designed to prevent further inquiry. Citizens in a democratic society deserve to know the truth, and to seek the truth in matters of such fundamental national importance should be treated as an expression of patriotic duty rather than the reverse."

Mark Crispin Miller, professor of media studies at New York University, replied ...

"Yes, if I had it to do over again, I would sign that statement readily, since the questions that it raises are not just legitimate but terribly important -- and they have not been answered credibly. The fact that such a statement should be controversial at all has less to do with what it says than with the great taboo that still inhibits rational discussion of the evidence. First of all, the statement asks for a new inquiry into 9/11. That is hardly an insane demand, considering the many obstacles and limitations that prevented the 9/11 Commission from doing a proper job."

Douglas Sturm, professor emeritus of religion and political science, Bucknell University, replied ...

"In direct response to your query, I in no way repudiate my action signing the 9/11 statement. It stands as an appeal to investigate closely and carefully a series of questions about that tragic event that have yet to receive fully satisfactory answers."

Burns H. Weston, professor emeritus, University of Iowa law school, replied ...

"Yes, I would do it all over again. It is my position that too many critical questions have not yet been officially answered, if even investigated, and that, therefore, the jury is still out on the complete truth of 9/11."